Opinion
SC20-366
11-23-2022
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY Petitioner(s) v. JACQUELINE P. BURGESS, ETC. Respondent(s)
Lower Tribunal No(s).: 4D18-3014; 562009CA006060AXXXHC
Upon review of the response to this Court's order to show cause dated May 18, 2022, and the reply, it is ordered that the petition for review is hereby dismissed.
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, POLSTON, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ, concur LABARGA, J, concurs in result with an opinion FRANCIS, J, did not participate
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
LABARGA, J, concurring in result.
Given the parties' resolution of this case and their mutual request to dismiss this matter, I concur with this Court's order dismissing this case.
Nonetheless, I reaffirm my dissent to this Court's holding in Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 338 So.3d 831 (Fla. 2022), because I strongly believe that proof of fraudulent concealment in an Engle-progeny case does not require proof of reliance on a specific statement by an Engle defendant.
HON. LAWRENCE STEVEN SCHACK, JUDGE